An Infinite Past?

[mattbballman31]

You are absolutely misrepresenting the BGV if you are claiming that it states the universe certainly had a finite past boundary. This is eminently clear from reading the paper, and even from the video which you provided. When Vilenkin finally comes to directly address the question, "Did the universe have a beginning?" at around the 35:00 minute mark of the video, his answer is, "Probably yes." You do not qualify an answer with "probably" if you are absolutely certain.

No one says anything about certainty. I don't know why everyone harps on this.

In Craig's debate with Carroll, he says:

In saying that the cosmogonic evidence confirms (2), I am not saying that we are certain that (2) is true. Too many people mistakenly equate knowledge with certainty. When they say that we do not know that the universe began to exist, what they really mean is that we are not certain that the universe began to exist. But, of course, certainty is not the relevant standard here. The question is whether (2) is more plausible in light of the evidence than its contradictory. As Professor Carroll reminds us,

Science isn't in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data. Unsuccessful theories are never disproven, as we can always concoct elaborate schemes to save the phenomena; they just fade away as better theories gain acceptance.[5]

Science cannot force you to accept the beginning of the universe; you can always concoct elaborate schemes to explain away the evidence. But those schemes will not fare well in displaying the aforementioned scientific virtues.

Even many who have expressed scepticism about premiss (2) admit that it is more plausibly true than not. am not certain of it.more likely possibility more likely than not that the universe began to exist.[7]

Neither the video nor the original paper conclude with certainty, as regards the past-finitude of the universe. As I mentioned, both simply state that our current understanding of physics is insufficient to describe the whole past-nature of the universe, and the video adds Dr. Vilenkin's suspicion-- far from a certitude-- that space-time had its origin in a quantum nucleation from nothing.

Craig has already addressed this:

function from something to something. . . For quantum tunneling to be truly from nothing, the function would have to have only one term, the posterior term. Another way of seeing the point is to reflect on the fact that to have no radius (as is the case with nothingness) is not to have a radius, whose measure is zero. Thus, there is no basisnothing is then an infinite, empty, flat space.I find this very hard to believe! Vilenkin finds it easier to believe that an itsybitsy universe should pop into being out of nothing. He thereby evinces a lack of understanding of the metaphysical chasm that separates being from non-being.If something can come from nothing, then the size and shape of the object is just irrelevant.

Baldly asserting that a mind can will and act in the absence of space-time, let alone that a mind can actually create space-time, is silly. I can just as easily assert that a mind cannot will and act in the absence of space-time, and at least I would have the justification that "will" and "action" lose cogency in the absence of time. You have provided absolutely no justification for your claim.

Craig says:

prior to creation God existed in an undifferentiatedundifferentiated time) without the universe and in time from the moment of creation. Perhaps an analogy from physical cosmology will be illuminating. The initial Big Bang singularity is not considered to be part of physical time, but to constitute a boundary to time. Nevertheless, it is causally connected causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe. It seems to me, therefore, that it is not only coherent but also plausible in light of the kalam cosmological argument that God, insofar as he exists changelessly alone without creation, is timeless and that he enters time at the moment of creation in virtue of his causal relation to the temporal universe.

This assumes that the Tensed theory of time is accurate, which I would thoroughly dispute (and have done, in a series of articles on my blog). If the dynamism of time is illusory, there is no need to traverse time from one moment to the next in order to bring the future to actuality. The whole of time-- past, present, and future-- is actual, on the Tenseless theory of time, and therefore infinitude would present no problem.

And I agree with the A-theory. What would like to discuss first? Reasons for A-theory, reasons against A-theory, reasons for B-theory, or reasons against B-theory?

By the way, your post is a breath of fresh air compared to Tassman.

[seer]

You are absolutely misrepresenting the BGV if you are claiming that it states the universe certainly had a finite past boundary. This is eminently clear from reading the paper, and even from the video which you provided. When Vilenkin finally comes to directly address the question, "Did the universe have a beginning?" at around the 35:00 minute mark of the video, his answer is, "Probably yes." You do not qualify an answer with "probably" if you are absolutely certain.

OK, I'll work with probably - and I never said it was certain. So there probably was a beginning. Thanks.

Neither the video nor the original paper conclude with certainty, as regards the past-finitude of the universe. As I mentioned, both simply state that our current understanding of physics is insufficient to describe the whole past-nature of the universe, and the video adds Dr. Vilenkin's suspicion-- far from a certitude-- that space-time had its origin in a quantum nucleation from nothing.

Yes, I agree, but we will need a completely new physics to get there. And who knows what these new rules will look like - do you?

Baldly asserting that a mind can will and act in the absence of space-time, let alone that a mind can actually create space-time, is silly. I can just as easily assert that a mind cannot will and act in the absence of space-time, and at least I would have the justification that "will" and "action" lose cogency in the absence of time. You have provided absolutely no justification for your claim.

Yes you can assert what you like. I have no reason to assume that the God of scripture, with His attributes, is limited in the sense you say.

This assumes that the Tensed theory of time is accurate, which I would thoroughly dispute (and have done, in a series of articles on my blog). If the dynamism of time is illusory, there is no need to traverse time from one moment to the next in order to bring the future to actuality. The whole of time-- past, present, and future-- is actual, on the Tenseless theory of time, and therefore infinitude would present no problem.

I've already started in on Dr. Barbour's book, in order to better comprehend his claims, but I will reiterate that-- regardless of the implications-- Dr. Barbour's position represents an incredible minority of scholarship on the subject. Generally, such fringe positions do not make the most convincing evidence for a claim.

Even Sean Carroll, who is on you side says this:

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/.../is-time-real/

The question of whether time is fundamental or emergent is, on the other hand, crucially important. I have no idea what the answer is (and neither does anybody else). Modern theories of fundamental physics and cosmology include both possibilities among the respectable proposals.

Brian Greene would take the opposite view:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...ml#fabric-time

The fact is Boxing, this is very much an open question. So again, you want me to play by your rules. That time is fundamental and real, so a timeless Being can not interact or create. So you stack the deck and claim victory.

And you have yet to answer how we could move through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe.

[seer]

By the way, your post is a breath of fresh air compared to Tassman.

Hey, I like Tass bro!

[shunyadragon]

No one says anything about certainty. I don't know why everyone harps on this.

Certainty has never been an issue. It has to with the concept of 'beginnings and nothing as used in science cannot be justified to use in philosophical/theological arguments because of the difference in definitions between the disciplines. It cannot justified that our physical existence probably had an 'absolute beginning' selectively using citations from scientists like Vilenkin, Steinhardt and Carol.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No one says anything about certainty. I don't know why everyone harps on this.

Craig qualified his position in the debate with Carroll, but he usually does not do so, when presenting the KCA. Instead, he very often claims that, "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning." Numerous other apologists have then taken this complete misrepresentation of the BGV, having not been exposed to any qualifying statements from Craig, and subsequently claimed that science has proven the universe had a finite beginning. It is for that reason that we "harp on" the lack of certainty in the field.

Craig has already addressed [Vilenkin's suspicion regarding quantum nucleation from nothing]:

I'll absolutely agree with Dr. Craig that Dr. Vilenkin means something entirely different by "coming from nothing" than most people would. In mentioning Vilenkin's position, I was not so much defending the idea of "coming from nothing" as I was simply describing the positions Dr. Vilenkin espoused in the video which Seer provided.

Craig says [that God existed in undifferentiated time, that God was timeless, that boundaries are not a part of the physical objects which they describe, and that causal priority can exist in the absence of temporal priority]

I would argue that action is just as non-cogent on "undifferentiated time" as it is on the complete absence of time. In fact, I would argue that the concept of "undifferentiated time," itself, may not be cogent-- even on the A-theory. If "undifferentiated time" is meant to imply that there is some actual passage of time which is simply not measured (as Craig defines it in this article), I would argue that Craig is wrong to equate this concept with "timelessness." If, instead, Craig is arguing that "undifferentiated time" is the complete absence of time, then the idea of timeless action remains completely non-cogent; and therefore, I would disagree entirely with the idea that causal priority can exist in the absence of temporal priority.

On boundaries, Dr. Craig seems to be conflating a boundary with an asymptote. These are two entirely different things. A boundary to time is absolutely considered to be a part of time, in physics.

And I agree with the A-theory. What would like to discuss first? Reasons for A-theory, reasons against A-theory, reasons for B-theory, or reasons against B-theory?

I have a series of five articles on my blog regarding my objections to Craig's views on time. Rather than attempting re-hash all of my arguments on this thread, would you be opposed to my directing you to what I've already written on the subject? You can find my series, here, if interested: http://boxingpythagoras.com/wlc/

By the way, your post is a breath of fresh air compared to Tassman.

While I would not presume to compare myself to anyone else, I am nonetheless grateful for the compliment! Thanks!

[Boxing Pythagoras]

OK, I'll work with probably - and I never said it was certain. So there probably was a beginning. Thanks.

This is actually a position that I share, so I'm glad we've reached a point of agreement.

Yes, I agree, but we will need a completely new physics to get there. And who knows what these new rules will look like - do you?

Not at all! Which is precisely why I am asking for cogent descriptions of such a period, if we are going to discuss it.

Yes you can assert what you like. I have no reason to assume that the God of scripture, with His attributes, is limited in the sense you say.

Nor have I any reasons to assume that the God of scripture even exists, especially when that entity is being ascribed attributes which are nonsensical.

The fact is Boxing, this is very much an open question. So again, you want me to play by your rules. That time is fundamental and real, so a timeless Being can not interact or create. So you stack the deck and claim victory.

Once again, the only "rules" I have asked you to play by are those of logic-- if you would like to abandon those, as well, there does not seem any point in having a discussion. I am not insisting that you operate under the assumptions that time is fundamental and real, and I have repeatedly asked you for a definition of "action" which is cogent in the absence of time. I am asking you to define the "rules" so that we can actually have a discussion.

And you have yet to answer how we could move through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe.

I already answered that this is only a problem on the Tensed theory of time addressing a past-eternal universe. I reject the Tensed theory of time, and I prefer past-finite models of the universe, so I'm really unsure as to why you think this question is at all relevant.

[seer]

This is actually a position that I share, so I'm glad we've reached a point of agreement.

Not at all! Which is precisely why I am asking for cogent descriptions of such a period, if we are going to discuss it.

There is no cogent description of what lies beyond the initial condition, or the space-time boundary. It was Vilenkin himself, in your link, said that we need a "new physics." His words not mine.

Nor have I any reasons to assume that the God of scripture even exists, especially when that entity is being ascribed attributes which are nonsensical.

His attributes are not non-nonsensical.

Once again, the only "rules" I have asked you to play by are those of logic-- if you would like to abandon those, as well, there does not seem any point in having a discussion. I am not insisting that you operate under the assumptions that time is fundamental and real, and I have repeatedly asked you for a definition of "action" which is cogent in the absence of time. I am asking you to define the "rules" so that we can actually have a discussion.

We are not speaking of logic. My idea is that a timeless being can interact or create space-time. What law of logic does that violate. Be specific please. And if we are not operating under the idea that time is real, rather than an illusion - then where exactly is the problem? This seem to be more a problem of physics than a violation of the laws of logic

I already answered that this is only a problem on the Tensed theory of time addressing a past-eternal universe. I reject the Tensed theory of time, and I prefer past-finite models of the universe, so I'm really unsure as to why you think this question is at all relevant.

Because moving through an infinite number of events to reach this present universe is incoherent. And what do you have left but infinite regression? And if the universe is past-finite then we are still left with a beginning - and what accounts for that beginning.

[Tassman]

There isn't supposed to be. It's a philosophical conclusion. In fact, part of Kalam is inferring what this 'cause' must be.



'Hijacking' is rhetoric. He's using their findings to make premise 2 more plausible than not. Nothing wrong with this. For example, there's absolutely nothing logically wrong with using a premise in a Solipsistic argument attempting to prove the non-existence of external reality in another argument attempting to prove the existence of the external world. Suppose this premise is: knowing the external world depends on the reliability of my sense perceptions. Suppose that some weirdo (you) comes along and says, "You can't use the Solipsism's premise as a part of an argument proving the external world! Solipsism disagrees with the realist's conclusion!" The simple answer is, "Yes you can weirdo." Same thing here.

V. admits his theorem (1) doesn't have a theological implications and (2) that even though he doesn't have the expertise, admits:



'Could be'. Of course! Craig agrees this is a 'could be'. And V. is right, in and of itself, the BGV doesn't say anything about the existence of God, just like saying, "knowledge of the external world depends on the reliability of sense perceptions" says nothing about realism or solipsism. It's up to the realist to use this as a premise in an argument for the external world. It's up to the solipsist to us this as a premise in an argument against the external world. In the same way, it's up to the theist to use the BGV as a premise in an argument for God's existence; it's up to YOU to use BGV as a premise in an argument for a natural event described by quantum cosmology.

But let's not have sniveling nonsense about the permissibility of using theologically neutral premises as parts of overall deductive argument for a conclusion that the adherents of the premises might not be privy to. That's just sophomoric.



Stop being a snob and quote him them! Then we can get away from the vague hand-waiving and get down to the details. In the mean time, all you look like is a snob. I'm dying to see how, where, and why, when we get down to the nitty-gritty, Craig's arguments are magically and easily answered by V.'s natural hypothesis. Oh yea. And your snobbishness is blindingly brilliant in that you have yet to be charitable to Craig by at least admitting Craig has gone deeper, and read in more detail, into V.'s literature than you will ever hope to go. You selectively quote Q&A and debate transcripts as Craig's exhaustive treatment of V. You are a dishonest harbinger of irrational iconoclasm.

Nope. Entirely new. Can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. 'Ought'/'Virtue' are entirely different dimension of reality.




Wow. This point flew passed you faster than a speeding bullet. Accepting a set of axioms is beside the point. The point is that math gives you necessary, a priori truths. Science cannot prove necessary, a priori truths. Science uses induction and empirical generalization. Science cannot prove mathematics. Science depends on mathematical models of nature. Mathematics is the language of Science. And what is the scientific adjudication process that decides to accept one set of axioms as as opposed to others? You have to prove how, empirically, our minds and nature are such that there is this coincidental complimentary relationship, and this relationship is such that our minds can sniff out these mathematical truths. Mathematics is deductive; science is inductive. You can't test mathematical truths; they are assumed, 'accepted', as you say. Science presupposes math. Science doesn't operate in a vacuum. If it's a tool for science, then the tool has something about it which allows science to know more if it didn't have it. Glasses are a tool for seeing better. A microscope is a tool to see things too small to the naked eye, a telescope too far away to the naked eye. Math is a microscope/telescope to necessary, a priori truths, truths which science can use as a tool, but the basis of which science can't prove scientifically. The mathematical world doesn't 'generate' new truths; that mathematical world already exists. Mathematical method discovers more and more about that world, and, in turn, science can use more and more to discover scientific truths, as the mathematical method, in turn, discovers more and more about its world. But this just shows that mathematics is a domain of knowledge, a domain delineated by its own internal structure. In turn, mathematics, using its method, can 'generate' new truths in the sense that it can draw out more and more logical implications from a more primitive axiom, as Cantor drew out his Cantorian paradise from applying set theory to transfinite arithmetic.

Nope! Moral Truths and Aesthetic Truths are just different ways of looking at the existing universe. Slavery was once deemed OK, now it is considered immoral; fat fleshy women were once deemed beautiful by the likes of Rubens and now they are not. Values change, the underlying facts do not.

As for mathematics, the only true premises or axioms in maths are what we define to be true (such as 2+2=4). Once we have the axioms, a valid proof for any theorem makes it impossible for the theorem to be false. But these are not new truths about nature either except inasmuch as a tool of science to acquire new knowledge.

1. Craig would agree with this.
2. There you go again equating knowledge with certainty. The point, which flew right passed you again, is that science assumes the principle of induction, which must be argued for philosophically. This has nothing whatsoever to do with falsifiability.



Not the point. Science's methodology is permeated with metaphysical and philosophical assumptions. The more you denigrate philosophy, the more you undermine the philosophy upon which science is based. You throw away philosophy because of it's alleged inability to generate new knowledge, and you throw away the philosophy that under-girds the whole scientific enterprise. Keep philosophy, and you have to admit that it is a domain of knowledge, a domain science makes use of by assuming its conclusions to arrive at new truths about the world.

1. Wait a minute. Didn't I just say, bozo, that Craig isn't claiming the cosmological evidence points one way or the other? Didn't I just quote him as saying he is not doing that? Yes, I did.
2. Also, do I have to be an expert in physics to say that Einstein was probably correct about the General Theory of Relativity?
3. V. agrees that there's an absolute beginning. Do I have to spell it out for you that if something had an absolute beginning, it isn't past-eternal? Can't we get passed this? Good grief!

Yes, but what you run away screaming from is whether the Plank phase is past-eternal. Craig's point is that it can't be for reasons I've already belabored, but you can't be brought to charitably interact with it because of your snobbishness.

Give me one citation form a reputable source that says this is the COMMON interpretation. Of course, this doesn't interact at all with my point that there is no consensus on which interpretation is correct, and that the causal interpretation far outnumber the a-causal ones.

Right, and I already quote V. as saying: "But if the fluctuations are not so wild as to invalidate classical spacetime, the BGV theorem is immune to any possible modifications of Einstein's equations which may be caused by quantum effects." So, it's still to be determined. In the mean time, theorem more probably entails a beginning.

See above.

As well, Guth also takes the BVG-theorem further in that: "There is of course no conclusion that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning, and no conclusion that there is an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point. There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178v1.pdf

In short a past and future eternal universe.

You really are either dumb or blind. This is why I love getting to the 7th, 8th level of exchange with weirdos like you. You get to really see, when you dig passed all the flowery scientific rhetoric, how illogical you get. Once again, a simple, kindergarten point races passed you. Whether you like it or not, whether you see it or not, the BVG theorem makes premise 2 more plausible than not. The 'therefore God' part is like 15 logical inferences away in the context of a philosophical argument. The fact that you can't see this is hilarious to me. Don't get me wrong. I think there are some good objections to Kalam, which I haven't made up my mind about yet. But your whole approach to Kalam betrays an extremely loony and daft mind so overly sozzled by scientific firewater, you really are three sheets to the wind!

" dumb or blind", "sozzled", "loony and daft" ???!

Nope, it doesn't! See above.

Evasion alert! Evasion alert! Gosh, I wish we were face to face so I could call you out easier!

Oh, my, my, my. Is this Tassman being a hypocrite and trying to hurt my feeeelings with a . . . with a . . . . APPEAL TO RIDICULE FALLACY . . . Oh, my, my, my.

Nope, merely an illustrative point demonstrating that never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation.

No, dummy. Craig presents valid philosophical concerns about the metaphysical implications of speculative cosmological models for which the physics justifying it is still inchoate. Much has been written about how actual infinities in reality lead to absurdities. Duh. Physicists need to deal, and have dealt, and are in the process of dealing, with this issue.

Craig, speaking within his area of expertise, can show how a theory may be philosophically untenable. And physicists need to deal, and have dealt, and are in the process of dealing, with this issue: is an actual infinite metaphysically possible? You and your physicist snobs are deaf, blind, and dumb to this extremely important issue.

And science can prove him wrong whereas philosophy cannot prove that an empirically verified scientific theory is wrong.

And Davies believes: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." So, because you disagree with Davies' conclusion, then, according to your warped logic, YOU CAN'T USE DAVIES TO SUPPORT YOUR MULTI-VERSE SCENARIO. I, of course, disagree with this. But you're the one saying that Craig can't use V.'s theorem because V. doesn't agree with Craig's conclusion. BY THE SAME TOKEN, you can't use Davies' conclusions about the multi-verse, because HE DOESN'T THINK THERE'S A NATURAL EXPLANATION FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE. Got it, McFly!? Probably not.

More poisoning the well. Whatever. Didn't expect a real rebuttal. Using your PROGRESS OF SCIENCE clap-trap, you shouldn't be confident in anything science supposedly 'discovers' because future progress might lay waste to whatever model is in fashion today. You can't assume the mutli-verse will just be true someday, because of a past prediction being validated. Every prediction must be scrutinized on a case by case basis. Or else, you're in a swamp of a lot of post-hoc, irrational, retro-confirmatory moonshine.

I think one can make a strong case that the progress of modern scientific knowledge has been extremely productive and consistent over the past five hundred years - beginning with Copernicus and Galileo. This despite the best efforts of theology and the likes of you to oppose it from the very start! The heliocentric model of the universe

[shunyadragon]

Craig misrepresents Vilenkin by arguing that the BGV Theorem allows for a beginning of the universe. It doesn’t! The BGV Theorem does not say that the universe began to exist; it says that inflationary models are past-incomplete, and require new physics to describe the boundary condition. Vilenkin’s proposal is that the boundary condition can be described by quantum tunnelling. I.e. Quantum Mechanics takes over where Relativity Theory breaks down at the Planck epoch.

Nope! Moral Truths and Aesthetic Truths are just different ways of looking at the existing universe. Slavery was once deemed OK, now it is considered immoral; fat fleshy women were once deemed beautiful by the likes of Rubens and now they are not. Values change, the underlying facts do not.

As for mathematics, the only true premises or axioms in maths are what we define to be true (such as 2+2=4). Once we have the axioms, a valid proof for any theorem makes it impossible for the theorem to be false. But these are not new truths about nature either except inasmuch as a tool of science to acquire new knowledge.

Science is based upon the assumption that the way the universe works now is the same as how it worked in the past and how it will work in the future and that the laws and constants of the universe are uniform. That’s all. If you want to call this metaphysical truth go ahead. But methodological naturalism is at the core of science not philosophical argument.

"Bozo"???!

FOCUS: “Quantum Mechanics is required at this point because it takes over where ‘Relativity Theory’ breaks down - namely at the Planck epoch”. This doesn't mean that there is nothing beyond the Planck era - there are several indications that say otherwise. Therefore, you cannot refer to “an absolute beginning” at this stage. We simply don't have sufficient information to do so.

"Screaming"???!

Craig is not in a position to know; he’s intruding into a field where he is unqualified. And despite Craig’s philosophical meanderings, the growing consensus among qualified, experienced cosmologists is that our universe is just one infinitesimal component of a vast – probably infinite – multiverse that itself had no origin in time. Even theist cosmologists such as Davies are coming to this conclusion.

In quantum theory things happen without specific, initiating causes. E.g. virtual particles appear from nothing and then return back to nothing. They exist for a fleeting instant, but they do exist and their reality is shown via the Casimir effect. Also, have a look at radioactive decay – to give two examples.

See above.

As well, Guth also takes the BVG-theorem further in that: "There is of course no conclusion that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning, and no conclusion that there is an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point. There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178v1.pdf

In short a past and future eternal universe.

" dumb or blind", "sozzled", "loony and daft" ???!

Nope, it doesn't! See above.

Once again: “Classical mechanics breaks down at the Planck epoch where Quantum mechanics takes over”.

Think about what? The question was: “What gaps in science have been filled in by religion”? I'm waiting.

Nope, merely an illustrative point demonstrating that never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation.
“Dummy”???!

Oh yes philosophy has its uses, e.g. it can ask pertinent questions. The thing is that it cannot answer its own questions, about cosmology for example, without the input of science.

And science can prove him wrong whereas philosophy cannot prove that an empirically verified scientific theory is wrong.

Davies nevertheless thinks that “Our universe is just one infinitesimal component amid this vast – probably infinite – multiverse, that itself had no origin in time”.

I think one can make a strong case that the progress of modern scientific knowledge has been extremely productive and consistent over the past five hundred years - beginning with Copernicus and Galileo. This despite the best efforts of theology and the likes of you to oppose it from the very start! The heliocentric model of the universe may go out of “fashion”, but I think it’s a fairly secure scientific construct. Don’t you?

And, while we can't assume the mutli-verse will be shown to correct someday, the fact that so many eminent, experienced cosmologists are moving in that direction is indicative that, as a working hypothesis, it has a lot going for it.

Excellent response!

[seer]

As well, Guth also takes the BVG-theorem further in that: "There is of course no conclusion that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning, and no conclusion that there is an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point. There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702178v1.pdf

In short a past and future eternal universe.

What are you talking about, from your very own link:

6 Does Inflation Need a Beginning?

If the universe can be eternal into the future, is it possible that it is also eternal into the past? Here I will describe a recent theorem [43] which shows, under plausible assumptions, that the answer to this question is no.

And you cherry picked your quote, because it went on:

The theorem does show, however, that an eternally inflating model of the type usually assumed, which would lead to Hav > 0 for past-directed geodesics, cannot be complete. Some new physics (i.e., not inflation) would be needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region. One possibility would be some kind of quantum creation event.

You can not get to an eternal past with inflation theory. You need a "new physics."

[Boxing Pythagoras]

There is no cogent description of what lies beyond the initial condition, or the space-time boundary. It was Vilenkin himself, in your link, said that we need a "new physics." His words not mine.

Then why would you expect anyone to take non-cogent ideas into consideration?

His attributes are not non-nonsensical.

If this is the case, then there should be some cogent way in which to define them. If there are such cogent definitions for the attributes of God, I am absolutely open to their discussion.

We are not speaking of logic. My idea is that a timeless being can interact or create space-time. What law of logic does that violate. Be specific please. And if we are not operating under the idea that time is real, rather than an illusion - then where exactly is the problem? This seem to be more a problem of physics than a violation of the laws of logic

One of the most fundamental principles of logical argument, taught in every course on Logic or Philosophy, is the importance of clear, cogent definitions for one's terminology. Without such definitions, there is no way to have a meaningful conversation. If you have a different definition for a concept than I have, we will not be talking about the same thing. Even worse, if neither of us has a definition for a concept, how can we possibly discuss it? We might as well be having a dialogue about a floobergast.

Because moving through an infinite number of events to reach this present universe is incoherent. And what do you have left but infinite regression? And if the universe is past-finite then we are still left with a beginning - and what accounts for that beginning.

You're still not understanding the difference between a past-finite boundary and a coming into existence from non-existence. Perhaps this little reductio ad absurdum might help to illustrate.

1. If time is past-finite, then there is some time t which is the first instant of time.
2. If t is the first instant of time, then there are no instants of time prior to t.
3. The universe exists at t.
4. If the universe came into existence from non-existence, there must have been some time t' prior to t at which the universe did not exist.
5. From #2, there cannot exist any time t' prior to t.
6. Therefore, either time is not past-finite or else the universe did not come into existence from non-existence.

[seer]

Then why would you expect anyone to take non-cogent ideas into consideration?

I'm not sure what you mean Boxing. Are you suggesting that Vilenkin's requirement for a "new physics" to avoid a beginning is not cogent?

If this is the case, then there should be some cogent way in which to define them. If there are such cogent definitions for the attributes of God, I am absolutely open to their discussion.

Why isn't it cogent to say that God is loving, good, just, forgiving, etc...

One of the most fundamental principles of logical argument, taught in every course on Logic or Philosophy, is the importance of clear, cogent definitions for one's terminology. Without such definitions, there is no way to have a meaningful conversation. If you have a different definition for a concept than I have, we will not be talking about the same thing. Even worse, if neither of us has a definition for a concept, how can we possibly discuss it? We might as well be having a dialogue about a floobergast.

I mean you understand what a timeless Being would mean, what creating would mean. So where is the problem? What law of logic would that concept violate.

You're still not understanding the difference between a past-finite boundary and a coming into existence from non-existence. Perhaps this little reductio ad absurdum might help to illustrate.

1. If time is past-finite, then there is some time t which is the first instant of time.
2. If t is the first instant of time, then there are no instants of time prior to t.
3. The universe exists at t.
4. If the universe came into existence from non-existence, there must have been some time t' prior to t at which the universe did not exist.
5. From #2, there cannot exist any time t' prior to t.
6. Therefore, either time is not past-finite or else the universe did not come into existence from non-existence.

How does this work if time is an illusion?

http://edge.org/conversation/the-end-of-time

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm not sure what you mean Boxing. Are you suggesting that Vilenkin's requirement for a "new physics" to avoid a beginning is not cogent?

No, I'm suggesting that the proposition of supernatural causation is not cogent.

Why isn't it cogent to say that God is loving, good, just, forgiving, etc...

Those attributes are cogent, and can be discussed. However, there are others which are not cogent, for example non-spatiotemporal existence or changeless action.

I mean you understand what a timeless Being would mean, what creating would mean. So where is the problem? What law of logic would that concept violate.

I actually do not know what a "timeless being" would mean, and the only definitions I know for "creating" require time to already exist. Again, if you could offer cogent explanations of what you mean by "timeless being" or timeless "creation," I'd be more than willing to discuss them.

How does this work if time is an illusion?

http://edge.org/conversation/the-end-of-time

I'm starting to get a better grasp of Barbour's theory of time, and it offers no better a platform for theistic Creation than McTaggert's block universe model (which I prefer). On Barbour's model, the universe is wholly static, and could not possibly have been caused or created.

[seer]

No, I'm suggesting that the proposition of supernatural causation is not cogent.

But suggesting a "new physics" which no one has a clue about or what it actually looks like is OK?

Those attributes are cogent, and can be discussed. However, there are others which are not cogent, for example non-spatiotemporal existence or changeless action.

I'm not sure what you mean by changeless action.

I actually do not know what a "timeless being" would mean, and the only definitions I know for "creating" require time to already exist. Again, if you could offer cogent explanations of what you mean by "timeless being" or timeless "creation," I'd be more than willing to discuss them.

Timeless - that God existed forever. And I didn't say that creation was timeless, only that an eternal God created matter and energy, and what law of logic would that concept violate.

I'm starting to get a better grasp of Barbour's theory of time, and it offers no better a platform for theistic Creation than McTaggert's block universe model (which I prefer). On Barbour's model, the universe is wholly static, and could not possibly have been caused or created.

And he did say that time was an illusion. So again, if time is an illusion how does your objection have weight? It is interesting that Barbor says that the appearance of time can arise from a timeless universe, so why couldn't the appearance of time arise from the creation by a timeless Being. In any case Boxing the overall point is that we, as Dr. Carroll said, do not really know what time is - is it real or an illusion? So your objection, I think, is moot.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But suggesting a "new physics" which no one has a clue about or what it actually looks like is OK?

Vilenkin has not asserted that there exists some new physics describe the past history of the cosmos, only that our current physics is insufficient to the task.

I'm not sure what you mean by changeless action.

Classical theism holds that God is changeless, and yet that God can perform actions. If you disagree with this sentiment, let me know. I honestly do not want to Straw Man you.

Timeless - that God existed forever. And I didn't say that creation was timeless, only that an eternal God created matter and energy, and what law of logic would that concept violate.

Matter and energy comprise only a tiny percentage of the known universe. If you are only asserting that God created matter and energy, rather than asserting God created all of space-time, then I've misunderstood your position.

Again, on Classical Theism, God is considered to be completely removed from time. If this is not your view, let me know so that I can avoid Straw Manning you.

And he did say that time was an illusion. So again, if time is an illusion how does your objection have weight? It is interesting that Barbor says that the appearance of time can arise from a timeless universe, so why couldn't the appearance of time arise from the creation by a timeless Being. In any case Boxing the overall point is that we, as Dr. Carroll said, do not really know what time is - is it real or an illusion? So your objection, I think, is moot.

If time is illusory in the manner Dr. Barber suggests, Creation is still non-cogent. I honestly don't understand what you think is gained by going that route.